A Srinagar Chief Judicial Magistrate Court found prima facie evidence of conspiracy and breach of trust against former Farooq Abdullah in the Jammu & Kashmir Cricket Association funds case, directing charges under the Ranbir Penal Code while rejecting additional charges sought by the Enforcement Directorate.
JAMMU AND KASHMIR: A court in Srinagar has identified prima facie evidence of criminal conspiracy and breach of trust against former Jammu & Kashmir Chief Minister Farooq Abdullah and others involved in the Jammu & Kashmir Cricket Association (JKCA) funds case.
In an order issued, Chief Judicial Magistrate Srinagar, Tabasum, ruled that the evidence presented indicated prima facie offences under Sections 120-B (criminal conspiracy), 406 (criminal breach of trust), and 409 (criminal breach of trust by a public servant) of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC) against the defendants, including Farooq Abdullah, and instructed that charges be framed against them.
However, the court denied a request from the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to impose additional charges on the accused.
ALSO READ: Farooq Abdullah Warns of Supreme Court Move Over Jammu & Kashmir Statehood Delay
The case stemmed from a first information report (FIR) filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), alleging financial misconduct and misappropriation of funds within the J&K Cricket Association.
The CBI has submitted a chargesheet against six individuals, including former JKCA office bearers and Farooq Abdullah, who held the position of president of the association. Two individuals, Manzoor Gazanfar Ali and Gulzar Ahmad Beigh, had previously been granted pardon and have now turned approvers in the case.
The court determined that sufficient prima facie evidence exists to pursue action against the remaining accused.
The order stated,
“After carefully perusing the material on record and applicable law, this court finds that the essential ingredients of the offences under Sections 120-B, 406 and 409 RPC are prima facie made out against all the accused persons,”
As a result, the case is scheduled for March 12 for the framing of charges, meaning Abdullah and the others will now face trial.
On ED’s Application to add Sec-411 and 414 of IPC
Notably, the court dismissed the ED’s application to add offences under Sections 411 (dishonest reception or retention of stolen property) and 414 (assisting in concealing or disposing of stolen property) of the IPC.
The court asserted that the ED lacked the standing to modify charges in this case. It noted that the investigation and prosecution were being handled by the CBI, and the ED was neither the investigative nor the prosecuting agency.
Furthermore, the court remarked that the ED can only act when a predicate offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) exists and cannot autonomously assume that such an offence has occurred.
The order said,
“The power of ED to investigate and enquire stands mainly connected to the offence of money laundering as defined in the PMLA. ED cannot assume from the material gathered by it that a predicate offence stands committed. The predicate offence has to be necessarily investigated and tried by the authorities empowered by law,”
Citing judicial precedents, including the Supreme Court ruling in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, the court reiterated that ED authorities cannot initiate action under the PMLA merely on the assumption that a scheduled offence has been committed.
Relying on the case of R.K.M Powergen Private Limited V. The Assistant Director & Others 2025 held that,
“The ED is not a super cop to investigate anything and everything which comes to its notice. There should be a criminal activity which attracts the schedule to PMLA & on account of such criminal activity, there should have been proceeds of crime. It is only then the jurisdiction of ED commences. The terminus a quo for the ED to commence its duties and exercise its powers is the existence of a predicate offence. Once there exists a predicate offence & the ED starts investigation under the PMLA and file a complaint then it becomes a stand alone offence.”
The court noted,
The essential ingredient for the ED to seize jurisdiction is the presence of a predicate offence. It is like a limpet mine attached to a ship. If there is no ship, the limpet cannot work. The ship is the predicate offence and proceeds of crime. The court added that without the ship, the limpet mince could not work.
It also noted that the IPC provisions referenced by the ED were no longer applicable, as the IPC had been repealed effective July 1, 2024.
Consequently, the ED’s request to add charges was dismissed as not maintainable.
Advocate Farhat Zia represented the CBI, while Advocate Umar Rashid appeared for the Enforcement Directorate. Advocate Ishtiyaq Khan represented Farooq Abdullah, and Advocates NA Ronga, Shariq Jan, and MD Khan represented the other accused parties.
Case Title: Central Bureau of Investigation Vs Saleem Khan and Ors.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
